March 5, 2012

... I chose the wrong words in my analogy of the situation. I did not mean a personal attack on Ms. Fluke....

My choice of words was not the best, and in the attempt to be humorous, I created a national stir. I sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for the insulting word choices.

The apology is clearly for the "wrong words... choice of words... word choices." That's very precise, stated 3 times. He does not apologize for the "analogy." What analogy? There is only one analogy that I can see, and that is the analogy of Sandra Fluke to a prostitute (because she, as he put it, thought "American citizens should pay for these social [i.e., sexual] activities").

So what are the words — plural: words — that he apologizes for using? There's "slut." That's one. What's the other? If it's "prostitute," then how can stand by the analogy?

And as for "slut"... recently, women have been embracing the word slut.

I'm going to monitor the Rush Limbaugh show when it comes on in a couple hours. Wouldn't it be a kick in the teeth if he said that he only apologized for his word choice, the "wrong words" were "slut" and "prostitute," and the better word, the word he should have chosen, was: whore. And: They're all whores!

I did not mean a personal attack on Ms. Fluke.... I meant a personal attack on all the Democrats in Congress!

93 comments:

So, are you going to address Flukes lying, drama queen testimony to Congress and her being an obvious Pelosi plant for a staged performance to pimp for government mandates on health insurance companies or is this just to beat up on Rush some more?

Um, I guess you missed the words about how if he's helping to pay for her contraception, he and his pals are owed a piece of her in return, and are owed video footage of the sex she's having on his dime...?

That's worse than just referring to her as a slut. That's an open assault on her.

I'm sure there's youtube footage of the whole sick spiel, if you have the stomach for googling it. I don't. I do not get how any decent woman can listen to that piece of shit that passes for a "man".

Well, yes, Ann, his non-apology apology proves itself to be insincere because he can't take back the word(s) and keep the analogy and be sincere. It's the analogy that's the problem, and he still hasn't apologized for that.

"Is Fluke going to sue, or is she suing, this son of a bitch for defamation? I would think it's defamation per se."

-- I doubt it. People have said worse things, and she is a public figure by giving testimony in Congress, so I think she has a much higher bar to clear, and even a pseudo-apology is usually enough of an apology.

Professor Althouse, a bunch of random, and undoubtedly partisan lawyer types at fark.com, here, make the claim that that it is Libel per se to state or imply a woman is unchaste.

I don't even know what per se means, much less libel, but I take it you don't consider that any sort of reasonable claim.

But you're right, wrt Fluke taking actual offense that she was called a slut, or called unchaste, I was thinking also, that I would quiz her on her feminist views on that matter.

Not ask her about her actual sexual behavior, but ask her if she'd been to slutwalk, or the vagina monologues, and if she really felt that she had been hurt by being called a slut.

Wouldn't it be a kick in the teeth if he said that he only apologized for his word choice, the "wrong words" were "slut" and "prostitutes," and the better word, the word he should have chosen, was: whores. And: They're all whores!

ABC’s George Will told me Sunday on “This Week” that GOP leaders have steered clear of harshly denouncing Limbaugh’s comments because “Republican leaders are afraid of Rush Limbaugh.”

“[House Speaker John] Boehner comes out and says Rush’s language was inappropriate. Using the salad fork for your entrée, that’s inappropriate. Not this stuff,” Will said. “And it was depressing because what it indicates is that the Republican leaders are afraid of Rush Limbaugh. They want to bomb Iran, but they’re afraid of Rush Limbaugh.”

I think Rush is going to try and deImus himself, I can't imagine he's going double or nothing.

I appreciate Rush as a great entertainer who is often correct on policy, but I never understand all the attention. Why is he calling her a slut and a prostitute of any significane? The liberals trying to score political points obviously are winning this one.

Having said that, Ann's suggested line for Rush would be great. I think he now needs to dismiss her as a tool of the democrats and possibly to point out the lies in her "testimony."

By the way, I thought his apology sentence was pretty direct. It was not the weasily apology to anyone who may be offended. I agree with Ann that he should explain what analogy he is talking about - I had assumed it was her to a slut or prostitute.

I normally think political operatives are far overrated, but on this "contraception" issue, it appears that they have come up with a con game that is working. I heard the insufferable Howard Dean on ABC talking about the "war on women," and it is an affective talking point for uninformed or low intelligence voters. The republican guy called Dean on it (somewhat gently) and, I suppose to his credit, Dean did not try to justify the language.

In the push for "free" contraception the distinction between whether the contraceptives are are intended for medicinal use or not can easily be made by the doctor prescribing. If medicinal there should be no problem for insurance to cover it barring religious exceptions.

That this or a similar solution is not pursued in this quest for "free" contraception invites the argument that Rush made.

In short, those pursuing socially reimbursed contraceptive use in all cases cross the bridge from medicinal use to include recreational use as as well.

Rush is correct to note the clash of sensibilities involved in the social reimbursement of recreationally used contraceptives brought on by those who defend "free" contraceptives in all cases.

I think the apology was almost as clumsy as the coent he was apologizing for. I do not, however, feel as though that has any bearing on whether or not he is a hypocrite for criticizing others who apologize. I'm not sure we can know that. It seemed to me as though he had a problem with insincere apologies or apologies that reverse someone's original and likely sincere belief about something. Limbaugh is only a hypocrite if his apology was insincere or if he disavowed an actually held belief. I think it's clear he did not do the latter and whether he did the former is probably unknowable.

Sandra Fluke, before Rush opened his mouth, was a PRIVATE PERSON! Seems to me she could sue him for defamation of her character.

Is it made worse by the antics on the right? Yes. I think it costs republicans votes. But, people here tend to disagree. They see this, perhaps, as the best vote gainer they've got. Topping off Richard Nixon's "I AM NOT A CROOK."

I rarely use vulgarities, nor does Mr. Limbaugh. When I do occasionally use them it is for a singular purpose - a shot across the bow.

We have the specter of the Speaker of the House, second in line for the presidency, calling a rather large segment of our populaton "brown shirts".

The featured anchor of a major network, MSNBC, jokingly branded these same people as "teabaggers". For the more genteel it should be noted that this is particularly vulgar sexual reference.

David Letterman jokingly accused the 14 year old daughter of Sarah Palin of public indecency in Yankee Stadium.

Bill Maher, who recently donated a million dollars to the Obama reelection effort, jokingly called Palin a c*nt and a tw*t on national television.

Limbaugh announced just prior to making his controversial statement that he was reluctantly going to use intemperate language to drive home a point. What resulted was a major attack by organs of the left in an effort to silence him. They did this by intimidating his sponsors, an illegal act.

So, let me say - jokingly - that I, and a lot of others, are quite peeved by the head nigger and his merry band of Nazi thugs for their assault that is all that is right and good about our nation. That's a joke folks.

Making fun of Obama. And, not having a convincing plan you can discuss with the American People, is another reason Obama isn't facing serious competition.

Mitt? How different is he from when McCain got picked? McCain lost, anyway. And, he was a war hero.

There's only so much you can do with advertising.

And, you haven't seen Obama spending any money, yet, on his own re-election bid.

What does a president look like who pulls the coals out of the fire? Remember DEWEY? Truman won.

Actually, DEWEY was a proven loser, because he lost to FDR in 1940. And, back then FDR only had six weeks or so, to live. FDR was responsible for switching out his veep's. Which is how you got to TRUMAN.

Yet you make fun of the democrats, as if the republicans played their cards better. That's just amazing to me.

The Professor seems to be pointing out that Rush used logic about females' sexual acts that must start with the same assumption that the Saudi Arabian religious police use, to wit: If men not your father or husband pay for your upkeep, then you are a commodity that causes shame to your parents and you are a social outcast that should expect bad treatment.

That is NOT the Conservative standard. Conservatives love women. And Conservatives will stand up to defend them. Why wouldn't we?

Rush thought he could be clever using a common hate for women in drumming up political support against Obamacare.

Sandra Fluke will attract the best lawyers in the business. IF she's a public figure, then they'll have phone numbers to her that are usually not known by anyone outside her immediate family.

The lady's "hot" ... in terms that she gets media attention on the first page. And, Rush, with a lawsuit on him ... (Maybe, even pictures of his being served?) ... Would definitely garner media slots. Not just in America. But, maybe, even around the world?

How much would it be worth to Limbaugh to SETTLE?

Do they teach this stuff in law schools? Lots of cases never see a courthouse. One side weighs the costs and usually makes an offer.

If the "offer" is too low ... the other side just proceeds to the courthouse. MONEY WILL CHANGE HANDS.

By the way, I don't have a TV. If I see news clips it's because they show up on the Internet. And, what I did notice? Sandra Fluke has amazing presence. And, a deep voice, for a woman. Not shrill. Camera ready.

I guess that if an intelligent woman like Althouse can be taken in by this fraud to the extent that her sole focus is on Limbaugh's tone-deafness then Republicans ought to be worried about Obama's strategy of pandering to young women.

So, let me say - jokingly - that I, and a lot of others, are quite peeved by the head nigger and his merry band of Nazi thugs for their assault that is all that is right and good about our nation. That's a joke folks.

You know if Mitt had intended to have a weekend where he collected compliments for "being the lead candidate among republicans," it sure seems Rush Limbaugh shot that particular story line to hell.

Why is it, with Obama not having done much with his office to impress a majority of Americans ... Are the pubbies fighting so hard over weak tea?

Harry Reid, meanwhile, is basking in sunshine. It was his idea to put the GOP's "Blount stinker" out there for a "vote." And, the GOP lost it in the senate. Does this bode well, in your eyes, for seeing the democrats lose their senate majority?

Whose ahead?

They're running into the stretch now. And, Mitt? He's running about as well as McCain. But perhaps a little bit slower?

You know, in an honest conversation, you wouldn't be able to spot someone's religious affiliation. Or they political ones. It would be open. You'd see many views.

One of my real mentors early in my career was annoyed by O'Rourke's title. "Why not parliament of pimps?" She asked.

That analogy works pretty well too.

Limbaugh should have laid off Fluke and just accused the White House of being pimps.

The thing that Limbaugh and his defenders miss is that what really looks bad is the way he picked a relatively obscure person and attacked her personally.

You can say that by testifying in front of congress Fluke made herself a public target, but if Rush hadn't tagged her, no one would know her name.

Pop stars and sports stars and politicians invite the ridicule they receive. Lots of people testify in front of Congress -- willing or no, accurately or no -- and barring some other public performance they should not be made into public targets.

You know if Mitt had intended to have a weekend where he collected compliments for "being the lead candidate among republicans," it sure seems Rush Limbaugh shot that particular story line to hell.Astute.

As I wrote before, and as with Coulter's over-the-top put down of the so-called 9/11 widows, if this incident makes other "useful idiots" think twice about being pawns in the Progressive tactic of putting forth supposedly untouchable spokespeople for their freedom-killing intrusions, it will have been well worth it.

What if Fluke said: "I don't care that Rush called me that. I disagree with almost everything he says. We are both serious committed culture warriors and we're fighting hard. It's not going to be a polite affair?"

That's the truth, it would be grown up and refreshing, but it's hard to be that when your goals are dependency, whining and victim-hood.

The only reason this is a front and center issue is the political corruption of the media supporting one political party in their coverage. They only give a shit because it was a conservative that said something nasty, because they then can use it as a weapon. They are ALL Media Matters operatives at this point.

Thats the huge grain of salt I apply to this issue.

I would like it if Rush shifted his target and said he really meant it was the Democrats in Congress that he was talking about.

Gas is at $4 per gallon and climbing, hot spots all over the globe are at the boiling point, real unemployment is somewhere around 20%, and we have trillion-dollar deficits every year with no budget at all.

Obama's killing every effective weapons system he can, he's planning on cutting our nuclear arsenal down to 10% of current levels (and less than 1% of its all-time high); and he's embroiled in multiple scandals involving the theft of billions of dollars, the loss of hundreds of lives, and the attempted hijack of the Bill of Rights.

But please do go on about the really important things: Whether women might have to buy their own pill, what Rush said about Sandra on the playground during recess, and gay marriage versus civil union.

We'll be an insolvent prefecture of Red China in 10 years, but at least vaginal dams will be free, and gays will have a piece of paper with "marriage license" at the top, with a real official-looking seal.

I've seen some very smart people taken in by transparent schemes before. I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

Don't give me any bullshit about this post being "in bad faith." The fact that you're bothering to blog this stuff is, in and of itself, and act of collusion with the Obama machine and their flagrant effort to turn the topic of conversation to nonsense issues. So the fact that you're choosing this as a topic becomes itself a valid topic for argument.

"IMO that just gives everyone license to be as crude and nasty as possible. Sure the first amendment allows all that kind of stuff. But it's not what I want for myself or my family."

-- Well, most people already are as crude and nasty as possible. So, it's not like this changes that. Or did you think the people questioning birth certificates of presidents and vice presidential nominees children were less nasty (some of them are also more crude!)

Anything I write will be obsolete and irrelevant in a few minutes. My sense is that Rush will come out of this a diminished man and that Ms. Fluke will prosper and thrive......Can Monica Lewinsky sue Bill Clinton for giving her the reputation of a slut and making her name a synomyn for a bj.

"How is loosening the standards of acceptable public speech, particularly over the airwaves, a conservative value?"

Lieberman and Tipper Gore, if I recall, were big on censoring video games. Government censorship is not conservative; letting people have the legal right to say things on the air waves is conservative.

Likewise, market related backlash to people saying things their audience doesn't like or want to hear is the conservative response.

Boycotts and organized assaults on advertisers are a conservative, market-based approach. As long as the government doesn't step in and cut someone's connection and ability to communicate, it is at most, value neutral as far as conservatives care.

Is Fluke going to sue, or is she suing, this son of a bitch for defamation? I would think it's defamation per se.

The first problem is that truth is a pretty good defense even for per se defamation. Was she unchaste? If not, then it shouldn't be defamation for calling her unchaste.

Then there is the problem of her thrusting herself into the public light, by voluntarily testifying before Congress, thereby becoming a public figure. And, the standard there is actual malice, which is a hard threshold to overcome. Worse for her, this is intensely political, which presumably brings it well within the 1st Amdt.

Oh, and if a defamation suit were to be filed on the basis of what Rush called Flake, her sexual history would most likely be relevant and discoverable. Remember, it would only be defamation if false, and so whether or not the woman really is a slut or whore is directly relevant to whether Rush defamed her or not by calling her such.

Much of our Defamation Per Se exceptions have disappeared over the last 50-100 years or so, as our society has liberalized. The time when calling a woman unchaste (or a slut, whore, etc.) is long past, as we can no longer assume that she is not.

Lieberman and Tipper Gore, if I recall, were big on censoring video games. Government censorship is not conservative.

Lieberman and Gore were supported by many conservatives. Various censorship bills across the country are being introduced by nannies of all political stripes.

Jack Thompson is one of the worse.

A local ultra-conservative action group would censor just about everything if they could and are just as smug and self-righteous about it as the left. (Obligatory quote by C.S. Lewis should follow, but won't.)

bagoh no. IMO that just gives everyone license to be as crude and nasty as possible. Sure the first amendment allows all that kind of stuff. But it's not what I want for myself or my family.

People can make an effort to restrain themselves on all sides. Call them on it when they don't. No favoritism."

This was not calling out for the good of the discourse, and it rarely is. It was another parry in the fight used solely for tactical advantage. That's why both sides do it, and neither has a right to claim to be above it. They aren't.

Serious issues are better discussed with respectful language, but if they are truly serious issues, we should not be so easily distracted. It's either more important than your delicate feelings or it's not. Please don't pretend that you don't know this was just a tactic. You are smart enough to see that, so why the posturing?

"I'm asking how it's a conservative value to call, over the airwaves or anywhere else, someones a "slut" and to talk about imagining her having sex on videotape.

I'd expect it from a rap musician I suppose. But a standard bearer of conservative values?"

-- The difference is conservatives think people should have the power to keep that from happening, through boycotts as has been done, or just not saying it -- whereas some branches of conservatism or liberalism would actually use force of law.

Freedom of speech means freedom of speech -- even speech you don't like. Especially that kind. So, don't try to confuse the issue; people know he has a right to say it, and he has to face the fallout. It is not unconservative to see that cause and effect.

Ann, it would be an excellent idea if Rush accused Congress of being a Parliament of Whores. They screw us all and we certainly derive no pleasure, even transitory, from it.

I think that would be good too. Though probably not literally true, it is figuratively so, at least for many members. And, it would go a long way towards defanging this as an attack.

What has gone underneath almost everyone's radar, is that the amount of political whoring going on has reached critical levels with Congress and this President (though Clinton was not really any better, and maybe not as adept). In the one example I know fairly well, over a hundred million dollars spent last year to pass patent reform. The large companies pushing the legislation got their money's worth.

One of the things that is really hurting this country and our economy is this type of crony capitalism that we see so often in Washington, D.C. Where billions upon billions of "green energy" loans and grants are given to companies not on the basis of merit, but rather on political connections. And, where TARP funds are loaned to AIG to protect Goldman Sachs, and to GM and Chrysler to protect the UAW, despite them being supposedly for protecting the banking industry. And, that only scratches the surface.

bagoh20 I know very well Dems took tactical advantage of the situation. That doesn't invalidate a genuine concern that that kind of language really does not belong in the political arena, at least in the context that Rush put it in.

Just because there's faux outrage doesn't invalidate the argument that it's genuinely ugly and repulsive.

You can't get a pass on doing something wrong because other people are also doing wrong, or because bad people who dislike you are unfairly taking advantage of your mistake. You don't get a pass on doing something wrong by changing the subject.

But this is what so many of you apparent conservatives are trying to do from what I can see. I think it's safer for you to actually stick to your values, particularly the ones that actually work.

"You can't get a pass on doing something wrong because other people are also doing wrong, or because bad people who dislike you are unfairly taking advantage of your mistake. You don't get a pass on doing something wrong by changing the subject."

Discussing these serious issues requires sobriety. You can have a sense of humor. But sobriety is required to have the best chance of reaching the best decisions. I would argue that good will to the maximum extent that you can offer it is also extremely useful in problem-solving. People skills.

Now I'm not offended by someone like Rush. I can just see how people won't be able to hear what you are saying if you are calling them a slut or otherwise acting out with such obvious bad faith.

The use of whore would not necessarily merit a response. However, if he referenced a "white hole" or "black hole" then he would likely suffer a complete and unrecoverable collapse. In fact, the latter has already been exploited by the NAACP to levy not only charges of defamation but also racism in order to extort capital from the accused business.

My advice to Limbaugh is to remain clear of holes, especially black holes. Their effects are demonstrably devastating.

nope she became a public figure when she testified before Ms. Pelosi and her cohorts. Rush did not make her a public figure.

That said Ms. Fluke is not as innocent as the media would like you to believe. She is an activist of the first water. It does not involve contraception. her cost estimates are off since Walmart has been offering birth control prescriptions since 2009 http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/03/05/attention-media-walmart-and-target-have-been-offering-9-birth-controlHealth plans have in the past covered birth control prescriptions if they have been prescribed in the treatment of a medical problem.

Do you see how we completely stopped talking about the real issue of who should pay for birth control?

Rush may have given us the excuse, but we are the ones who chose to obsess on the less important at the expense of the more, which is exactly how got in our current broke state in the first place.

In a reasonable discussion, if someone used language that was not appropriate, you simply say, "please don't use that kind of language". The "offender" can simply apologize and the debate continues if the issue really interests the debaters more than the squirrel that just ran by.

Now either party can choose to hang on to the squirrel issue, but unless both do, the discussion moves on or ends abruptly.

Clearly everyone continues to be fascinated with squirrels. This civility crap will never be resolved, and will continue to cost us dearly as we play back and forth the aggrieved party. It's boring, wasteful, and going nowhere.

Next year this particular squirrel will be long dead, but new ones will be born, and the real issue will be worse and still unaddressed.

Jason, In a labor dispute, a secondary boycott—that is a boycott of someone who is not the party with whom you have the dispute—is illegal under the Taft-Hartly Act of 1947. It's an unfair labor practice. Outside of a labor dispute, there is nothing illegal about a secondary boycott, and it is one of the left's most favorite tools. This also a favorite tactic of the mafia--harming or threatening to harm someone else in order to get to you.

One thing we can say for sure is that if Obama does win in November because he wins the soccer mom vote, Obama will have to give Rush Limbaugh a medal.

A strong strong issue of denial of religious freedoms for churches under Amendment #1 has disappeared overnight and been replaced by a settled conviction that American Women Cannot Trust Romney or any other GOP man.